Historic District Commission Staff Report March 2 nd, 2016
|
|
- Cecil White
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Historic District Commission Staff Report March 2 nd, 2016 Page 1 of 28 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes (1-6-16, ) Administrative Approvals: Middle Street Misc. changes Islington Street Misc. Changes Pickering Ave. - Trim OLD BUSINESS: A. 236 Union Street (Moderate Demo and Two- Family House) PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT AGENDA: Hunking Street (Minor Fence) Bridge Street (Minor Misc. Changes) New Castle Ave. (Minor Remove Chimney) New Castle Ave. (Minor Replace Windows) State Street (Minor Replace Deck) WORK SESSIONS: A. 0 Marcy Street (Moderate Stage modifications) B High Street (Moderate New buildings in rear) C Maplewood Ave. (Major 4-5 Story building) D. 77 Hanover Street (Minor Misc. Changes) E. 280 South Street (Minor Garage and Rear Addition) F. 75 Congress Street (Moderate Parapet and penthouse) G. 172 Hanover Street (Moderate Demo solarium and entry) DISCUSSION: Design Guidelines - Adoption 2016 HDC Work Plan
2 Page 2 of 28 WS-D WS-B WS-C WS-G WS-F 2 OB-1 WS-A WS-E HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEETING DATES: March 2 nd & 9 th APPLICATIONS: 16
3 Historic District Commission Project Address: Permit Requested: Meeting Type: 236 UNION STREET CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARING #OB-1 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: General Residential District C (GRC) Land Use: Commercial Land Area: 5,064 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: NA Building Style: NA Number of Stories: 1 Historical Significance: NA Public View of Proposed Work: View from Union Street Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Cabot Street B. Proposed Work: Demolition and replacement of the existing structure C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 3 of 28 I. Neighborhood Context: The new building is located along Maplewood Ave. and Deer and Hanover Streets. It is surrounded with many new and proposed infill buildings. The neighborhood is predominantly made up of 4-5 story brick structures on large lots with little to no setback from the sidewalk. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The proposed application seeks to: Demo and replace the existing structure with a 2.5 story residential two-family structure. Note At the meeting the applicant was asked to consider submission of documentation detailing the conditions and history of the existing building. I reviewed the archives in the Planning Department and forwarded the applicant a draft inventory form that was used in studying the Islington Street Corridor prior to expansion of the HD. The Applicant will submit a revised packet providing this detail. K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image of the Mock-Up HISTORIC SURVEY RATING NA
4 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN 236 UNION STREET PUBLIC HEARING #OB-1 (MODERATE) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures No. GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 2 Gross Floor Area (SF) Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-FAMILY STRUCTURE ONLY - 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:236 UNION STREET Case No.:3 Date: Page 4 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
5 Historic District Commission Project Address: 69 HUNKING STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #1 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: General Residence B (GRB) Land Use: Single Family Land Area: 1,940 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c Building Style: Federal Number of Stories: 2.5 Historical Significance: Focal Public View of Proposed Work: View from Hunking & Mechanic Streets Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: South End Residents B. Proposed Work: To install a fence with gates. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects only): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Zoning Map Page 5 of 28 I. Neighborhood Context: The structure is located along Hunking and Mechanic Streets. It is surrounded with many woodsided historically significant structures and buildings. The neighborhood is predominantly made up of 2.5 story wooden structures on small lots with little to no setback from the sidewalk. J. Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant is proposing to add a decorative fence along the property line. The proposed fence is in eight foot section and its 48 inches tall with posts and decorate caps. The applicant may also require zoning board approval for the fence to be located within the 20 feet sight line at the intersection. K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Streetview Images HISTORIC SURVEY RATING F
6 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 69 HUNKING STREET PUBLIC HEARING #1 INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories INSTALL FENCING WITH GATES ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:69 HUNKING STREET Case No.: 1 Date: Page 6 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
7 Historic District Commission Project Address: 7 ISLINGTON STREET (40 BRIDGE ST.) Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #2 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Urban General (CD4) Land Use: Vacant Land Area: 7,460 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1860 Building Style: Greek Revival/ Modern Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Bridge Street Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: Remove and Replace building with a 3.5 story mixed-use building. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished/ Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 7 of 28 I. Neighborhood Context: The building is located in the edge of the downtown business district on Bridge Street and is surrounded by a wide variety of focal and contributing structures with no front yard setbacks. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant is proposing to remove a skylight, the elevator overrun, replace the granite veneer at low levels and limited visibility, add ventilation stacks and louvers, make minor relocations to the windows, shift the wall at the stairwell, add roof-top mechanical units and substitute a Pella window for the Marvin windows previously approved. Note that some changes, such as the stucco for granite veneer wall, appears to be a value engineering exercise. K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Streetview Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
8 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN 7 ISLINGTON (40 BRIDGE STREET) PUBLIC HEARING #2 (MAJOR PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures No. GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MAJOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories - CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SITE PLAN ONLY - 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Number and Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens / Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns/ Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Screening/ Enclosures (i.e. sheds, dumpsters ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:7 ISLINGTON STREET Case No.:2 Date: Page 8 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE41 H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
9 Historic District Commission Page 9 of 28 Project Address: 59 NEW CASTLE AVE. Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #3 Existing Conditions: Zoning District: GRB Land Use: Single-Family Land Area: 3,560 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1820 Building Style: Queen Anne Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: South End Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Little Harbor Neighborhood B. Proposed Work: To remove a chimney and kitchen greenhouse window. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) J. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along New Castle Ave. It is surrounded with many wood 2.5 story structures with shallow setbacks and small side or rear garden areas. K. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The Application is proposing to: Remove a single brick chimney (4 tall); Remove the existing greenhouse window on the kitchen wall. L. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
10 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 59 NEW CASTLE AVE. PUBLIC HEARING #3 (MINOR AGENDA) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories REMOVE CHIMNEY & GREENHOUSE WINDOW ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:59 NEW CASTLE AVE. Case No.:3 Date: Page 10 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
11 Historic District Commission Project Address: 137 NEW CASTLE AVE. Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #4 Existing Conditions: Zoning District: GRB Land Use: Single-Family Land Area: 4,825 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1850 Building Style: Greek Revival Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: South End Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Little Harbor Neighborhood B. Proposed Work: To remove and replace the windows. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) M. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along New Castle Ave. It is surrounded with many wood 2.5 story structures with shallow setbacks and small side or rear garden areas. Page 11 of 28 N. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The Application is proposing to: Remove and replace all the windows on the house with Anderson A Series, simulated divided light windows with exterior grills. The double-hung windows are proposed to change from 6/6 to 4/1; A casement window is proposed for each bedroom. The windows will be black. O. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C Zoning Map
12 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 137 NEW CASTLE AVE. PUBLIC HEARING #4 (MINOR AGENDA) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories REMOVE WINDOWS ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:137 NEW CASTLE AVE. Case No.:4 Date: Page 12 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
13 Historic District Commission Project Address: 121 STATE STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: PUBLIC HEARING #5 A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD4 Land Use: Mixed-Use Land Area: 2,845 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1815 Building Style: Federal Number of Stories: 3 Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Sheafe Street Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To replace rear deck. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 13 of 28 I. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along Court Street. It is surrounded by a public park (with a privacy fence) and many wood and brick 2-3 story historic structures with no front yard setbacks with gardens and lawns within the rear yards. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant is proposing to: Remove and replace the existing rear deck; The deck will be enlarged 3 feet closer to Sheafe Street. The materials will be the same as the existing deck and a painted-bead-board ceiling will be applied to the underside of the deck. K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
14 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN 121 STATE STREET PUBLIC HEARING #5 (MINOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories INSTALL NEW DECK ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:121 STATE STREET Case No.:5 Date: Page 14 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
15 Historic District Commission Project Evaluation Form: 0 MARCY STREET / PRESCOTT PARK Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #A A. Property Information - General: Zoning District: Municipal (M) Land Use: Public Park Land Area: 153,485 +/- SF Estimated Age of Structure: NA Building Style: Modern Stage Number of Stories: NA Historical Significance: NA Public View of Proposed Work: Limited view from Marcy Street Unique Features: Public Park with Historical Significance Neighborhood Association: South End B. Proposed Work: Remove and replace the stage and control booth. Page 15 of 28 J. Neighborhood Context: The stage structure and performance area is located along Marcy Street is surrounded by a wide variety of contributing structures along Marcy Street and many open spaces within Prescott Park. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant proposes to: Demolish the existing stage and control booth and construct a new stage and control booth in a new location. A canopy will be added to the stage. Note that the Applicant has submitted revised plans to reflect the comments from the December work session. However, given the project design is on-going, as well as the review from the Attorney General s office, further revisions will be provided to the HDC for the 4/15/16 meeting. As discussed at the last work session, given the concerns for the limit of work of the performance area and how it impacts other areas of the park as well as pedestrian connectivity between areas, it would be helpful to have the applicant illustrate or identify the location of where any barriers (i.e. structures or rope lines) are located. Additionally, the notion of making the control booth temporary should also be evaluated in order to address the concerns for visual and physical barriers to pedestrian traffic along the seawall. K. Aerial Image, Street view and Zoning Map: C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment Planning Board City Council D. Lot Location: Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Images HISTORIC SURVEY RATING -
16 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS No. 0 MARCY STREET / PRESCOTT PARK WORK SESSION #A (MODERATE PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories REMOVE AND REPLACE STAGE AND CONTROL BOOTH ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT HDC COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:0 MARCY STREET Case No.: A Date: Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate INSERT 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate PHOTO 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate HERE 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No SITE DESIGN I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No Page 16 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn
17 Historic District Commission Project Address: HIGH STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #B A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD4-L1 Land Use: Multifamily Land Area: 3,920 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1820 & c.1860 Building Style: Federal Number of Stories: 2.5 Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from High Street Unique Features: Abuts The Hill Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To add a new building on the rear and make misc. renovations. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) I. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along State Street. It is surrounded with many brick 3 story historic structures with no front yard setbacks with gardens and lawns within the rear yards. J. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant is proposing to: Add a new two-family structure to the rear of the existing structures. Renovate the two existing historic structures. Resurface the gravel driveway as a heated, brick driveway. Provide 1 parking spaces per unit. K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C Page 17 of 28
18 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN HIGH STREET WORK SESSION #B (MODERATE) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 2 Gross Floor Area (SF) Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS MODERATE PROJECT ADD A NEW STRUCTURE AND RESTORE EXISTING STRUCTURES ONLY 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:137 HIGH STREET Case No.:B Date: Page 18 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
19 Historic District Commission Project Address: MAPLEWOOD AVE. Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #C A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Urban General (CD4) Land Use: Parking Lot Land Area: 56,675 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: NA Building Style: NA Historical Significance: NA Public View of Proposed Work: View from Maplewood Ave., Deer and Bridge Streets Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: North End B. Proposed Work: Construct a story mixed-use building. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished / Constructed: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) L. Neighborhood Context: The lot is located along Deer and Bridge Street. It is surrounded with mainly brick 1-5 story structures with shallow to no front yard setbacks. J. Background & Suggested Action: Page 19 of 28 PENDING RECEIPT OF THE REVISED PLANS AND/OR DRAWINGS, I WILL PREAPRE A MEMO REGARDING THE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HDC FROM THE LAST WORK SESSION AS WELL AS ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. NOTE THAT A CONDITIONAL PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE ADDED STORY/ HEIGHT K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING -
20 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN MAPLEWOOD AVE. WORK SESSION #C (MAJOR PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MAJOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories ADD A NEW 4 STORY BUILDING 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Storm Windows / Screens Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls / Screenwalls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:46-64 MAPLEWOOD AVE Case No:C Date: Page 20 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
21 Historic District Commission Project Address: 77 HANOVER STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #D Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD5 Land Use: MIXED-USE Land Area: 4,583 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1850 Building Style: Federal Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Cabot and Middle Streets Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Goodwin Park B. Proposed Work: To replace siding, flashing etc.. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 21 of 28 M. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along Hanover Street. It is surrounded with many masonry and brick buildings that are 3-5 story structures with little to no setback from the street. N. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The Application is proposing to: Replace the composite siding, trim and panels and reflash the windows and doors. O. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
22 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 77 HANOVER STREET WORK SESSION #D (MINOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories RESIDING, TRIM AND FLASHING ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:77 HANOVER STREET Case No.:D Date: Page 22 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
23 Historic District Commission Project Evaluation Form: 280 SOUTH STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #E Page 23 of 28 I. Neighborhood Context: This contributing structure is located along South Street and is surrounded with many other wood, 2.5 story contributing structures. J. Staff Comments and Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing shed, construct a garage and rear addition. A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Single Family Residence B (SRB) Land Use: Single- Family Land Area: 17,915 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1810 Building Style: NA Number of Stories: 2.5 Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from South Street Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Little Harbor B. Proposed Work: To construct a garage and rear addition. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
24 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 280 SOUTH STREET WORK SESSION #E (MINOR) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MINOR PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories ADD GARAGE AND REAR ADDITION ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) - PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT HDC COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:280 SOUTH STREET Case No.:E Date: Page 24 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
25 Historic District Commission Project Evaluation Form: 75 CONGRESS STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #F A. Property Information - General: Existing Conditions: Zoning District: Central Business District (CBB) Land Use: Mixed-Use Land Area: 6,240 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: NA Building Style: NA Number of Stories: 2 Historical Significance: Unknown Public View of Proposed Work: View from Daniel Street Unique Features: Former service entry/ area Neighborhood Association: Downtown Residents B. Proposed Work: To restore the original parapet wall and add penthouse units. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Significant Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Consent Agenda (i.e. very small alterations, additions or expansions) Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 25 of 28 I. Neighborhood Context: This 2 story structure is located on Fleet and Congress Streets and is surrounded with many contributing structures. The neighborhood is predominantly story wood and brick structures with no setbacks from the street edge. J. Staff Comments and Suggestions for Consideration: The applicant proposes to restore the original parapet wall along the street edge of the building, add penthouse units and other rooftop appurtenances. Note that a variance(s) maybe required for restoration of the parapet wall and the additional height associated with the penthouse units. K. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING -
26 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN No. 75 CONGRESS STREET WORK SESSION #F (MINOR PROJECT) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Building Proposed Building (+/-) Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT HDC COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate MINOR PROJECT - REPLACE PARAPET, ADD PENTHOUSE UNITS AND ROOR APPURTENANCES ONLY - 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY: 75 CONGRESS STREET Case No.: Date: Page 26 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
27 Historic District Commission Project Address: 172 HANOVER STREET Permit Requested: CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL Meeting Type: WORK SESSION #G Existing Conditions: Zoning District: CD4 Land Use: Commercial Land Area: 3,204 SF +/- Estimated Age of Structure: c.1930 Building Style: Colonial Revival Historical Significance: Contributing Public View of Proposed Work: View from Hanover and Vaughan Mall Unique Features: NA Neighborhood Association: Downtown B. Proposed Work: To demolish solarium and reconstruct entry. C. Other Permits Required: Board of Adjustment D. Lot Location: Planning Board City Council Terminal Vista Gateway Mid-Block Intersection / Corner Lot Rear Lot E. Existing Building to be Altered/ Demolished: Principal Accessory Demolition F. Sensitivity of Context: Highly Sensitive Sensitive Low Sensitivity Back-of-House G. Design Approach (for Major Projects): Literal Replication (i.e Congress, Jardinière Building, 10 Pleasant Street) Invention within a Style (i.e., Porter Street Townhouses, 100 Market Street) Abstract Reference (i.e. Portwalk, 51 Islington, 55 Congress Street) Intentional Opposition (i.e. McIntyre Building, Citizen s Bank, Coldwell Banker) H. Project Type: Minor Project (i.e. small alterations, additions or expansions) Moderate Project (i.e. significant additions, alterations or expansions) Major Project (i.e. very large alternations, additions or expansions) Page 27 of 28 P. Neighborhood Context: The building is located along Hanover Street. It is surrounded with many masonry and brick buildings that are 3-5 story structures with little to no setback from the street. Q. Staff Comments and/ or Suggestions for Consideration: The Application is proposing to: Remove the solarium (1980s) and restore the main entryway off of the Vaughan Mall. R. Aerial Image, Street View and Zoning Map: Zoning Map Aerial and Street View Image HISTORIC SURVEY RATING C
28 STAFF HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTEXT BUILDING DESIGN & MATERIALS SITE DESIGN 172 HANOVER STREET WORK SESSION #G (MODERATE) INFO/ EVALUATION CRITERIA SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Project Information Existing Proposed Abutting Structures Surrounding Structures Building Building (+/-) GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION (ESTIMATED FROM THE TAX MAPS & ASSESSOR S INFO) 1 Gross Floor Area (SF) 2 Floor Area Ratio (GFA/ Lot Area) 3 Building Height / Street-Width Ratio 4 Building Height Zoning (Feet) MODERATE PROJECT 5 Building Height Street Wall / Cornice (Feet) 6 Number of Stories REMOVE SOLARIUM AND RESTORE ENTRYWAY ONLY 7 Building Coverage (% Building on the Lot) PROJECT REVIEW ELEMENT APPLICANT S COMMENTS HDC SUGGESTIONS APPROPRIATENESS 8 Scale (i.e. height, volume, coverage ) Appropriate Inappropriate 9 Placement (i.e. setbacks, alignment ) Appropriate Inappropriate 10 Massing (i.e. modules, banding, stepbacks ) Appropriate Inappropriate 11 Architectural Style (i.e. traditional modern) Appropriate Inappropriate 12 Roofs Appropriate Inappropriate 13 Style and Slope Appropriate Inappropriate 14 Roof Projections (i.e. chimneys, vents, dormers ) Appropriate Inappropriate 15 Roof Materials Appropriate Inappropriate 16 Cornice Line Appropriate Inappropriate 17 Eaves, Gutters and Downspouts Appropriate Inappropriate 18 Walls Appropriate Inappropriate 19 Siding / Material Appropriate Inappropriate 20 Projections (i.e. bays, balconies ) Appropriate Inappropriate 21 Doors and Windows Appropriate Inappropriate 22 Window Openings and Proportions Appropriate Inappropriate 23 Window Casing/ Trim Appropriate Inappropriate 24 Window Shutters / Hardware Appropriate Inappropriate 25 Awnings Appropriate Inappropriate 26 Doors Appropriate Inappropriate 27 Porches and Balconies Appropriate Inappropriate 28 Projections (i.e. porch, portico, canopy ) Appropriate Inappropriate 29 Landings/ Steps / Stoop / Railings Appropriate Inappropriate 30 Lighting (i.e. wall, post ) Appropriate Inappropriate 31 Signs (i.e. projecting, wall ) Appropriate Inappropriate 32 Mechanicals (i.e. HVAC, generators) Appropriate Inappropriate 33 Decks Appropriate Inappropriate 34 Garages/ Barns / Sheds (i.e. doors, placement ) Appropriate Inappropriate 35 Fence / Walls (i.e. materials, type ) Appropriate Inappropriate 36 Grading (i.e. ground floor height, street edge ) Appropriate Inappropriate 37 Landscaping (i.e. gardens, planters, street trees ) Appropriate Inappropriate 38 Driveways (i.e. location, material, screening ) Appropriate Inappropriate 39 Parking (i.e. location, access, visibility ) Appropriate Inappropriate 40 Accessory Buildings (i.e. sheds, greenhouses ) Appropriate Inappropriate PROPERTY EVALUATION FORM PORTSMOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PROPERTY:172 HANOVER STREET Case No.:g Date: Page 28 of 28 Decision: Approved Approved with Stipulations Denied Continued Postponed Withdrawn INSERT PHOTO HERE H. Purpose and Intent: 1. Preserve the integrity of the District: Yes No 4. Maintain the special character of the District: Yes No 2. Assessment of the Historical Significance: Yes No 5. Complement and enhance the architectural and historic character: Yes No 3. Conservation and enhancement of property values: Yes No 6. Promote the education, pleasure and welfare of the District to the city residents and visitors: Yes No I. Review Criteria / Findings of Fact: 1. Consistent with special and defining character of surrounding properties: Yes No 3. Relation to historic and architectural value of existing structure: Yes No 2. Compatibility of design with surrounding properties: Yes No 4. Compatibility of innovative technologies with surrounding properties: Yes No
Historic District Commission Staff Report November 4 th & 18 th, 2015
Historic District Commission Staff Report November 4 th & 18 th, 2015 Page 1 of 36 8. 54/58 Ceres Street (Minor HVAC units (roof-mounted)) 9. 67-77 State Street (Minor Revise windows and doors) 10. 143
More informationHistoric District Commission
Historic District Commission Page 1 of 14 Staff Report January 2 nd, 2018 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 454 Middle Street - Recommend Approval 2. 24 Johnson Court -
More informationHistoric District Commission
Historic District Commission Page 1 of 26 Staff Report June 6 th, 2018 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 238 Deer Street - Recommend Approval 2. 59 Sheafe Street - Recommend
More informationHistoric District Commission Staff Report September 7 th 2016
Historic District Commission Staff Report September 7 th 2016 Page 1 of 10 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes (8-3-16, 8-10-16) Administrative Approvals: 1. 77 State Street (termination
More informationHistoric District Commission Staff Report May 3 rd, 2017
Historic District Commission Staff Report May 3 rd, 2017 Page 1 of 26 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 39 Mount Vernon Street (HVAC) - Approved 2. 133 Islington Street
More informationHistoric District Commission Staff Report February 1 st, 2017
Historic District Commission Staff Report February 1 st, 2017 Page 1 of 18 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes (1-4-17) Request for an Extension 1. 121 State Street Administrative
More informationHistoric District Commission
Historic District Commission Page 1 of 32 Staff Report December 6 th, 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS / OLD BUSINESS: Administrative Approvals: 1. 235 Islington Street - TBD 2. 30 Maplewood Ave. - Recommend
More informationResolution : Exhibit A. Downtown District Design Guidelines March 2003
Resolution 03-011: Exhibit A Downtown District Design Guidelines March 2003 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Adopted March 2003 1 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES Adopted
More informationChapel Hill Historic District Commission MILES RESIDENCE. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness 240 Glandon Drive PIN
Chapel Hill Historic District Commission MILES RESIDENCE Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness 240 Glandon Drive PIN 9788871387 The Miles residence is a Cape Cod Revival structure located at 240
More informationB L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development
B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development Adopted June 18, 2009 This section of the Design and focuses on site planning and design guidance for new multi-family
More informationRequest Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Planner Kristine Gay
Applicant/Owner Ocean Rental Properties, LLC Public Hearing April 13, 2016 City Council Election District Beach Agenda Item 1 Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront
More informationMIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE. TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER Project No RZ1.1. Issued.
N MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C- FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER 04-00 Project No. 496 Issued Revised SCALE: " = 0' N 0 0 0 40 RZ. c GENERAL PROVISIONS: a. SITE LOCATION.
More informationSite Planning. 1.0 Site Context. 2.0 Pedestrian Circulation Systems. Pag e 2-23
The following photographs from throughout the country illustrate key urban design principles. Photographs are provided to illustrate the overall urban design concepts described in Chapter 1 of the Downtown
More information6. BUILDINGS AND SPACES OF HUMAN SCALE
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas Design Approaches 79 6. BUILDINGS AND SPACES OF HUMAN SCALE There are many elements of buildings and spaces that contribute to the creation
More informationMorgan s Subdivision Historic District Character-defining Features
Morgan s Subdivision Historic District Character-defining Features DISTRICT DESCRIPTION This small addition, designed as a neighborhood for those wishing to move east from Capitol Hill, was predominantly
More information13. New Construction. Context & Character
13. New Construction Context & Character While historic districts convey a sense of time and place which is retained through the preservation of historic buildings and relationships, these areas continue
More informationSECTION TWO: Overall Design Guidelines
SECTION TWO: Overall Design Guidelines This section provides overall design principles and guidelines for the Gardnerville Mixed-use Overlay. They provide criteria for mixed-use places consisting of residential,
More informationWalnut Creek Transit Village Design Guidelines. Part Three III - 25
C. General Design Criteria Part Three DRAFT 0/6/ III - 5 Frontage Types Frontage is a semi-public transition zone at the ground level where public and private realms meet. An understanding of various frontage
More informationFLORIN ROAD CORRIDOR Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines Checklist
FLORIN ROAD CORRIDOR Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines Checklist Applicant s Name: Project Address: Phone: Email: Applicant shall fill out the design guidelines checklist for all guidelines applicable
More informationDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2012 TO: Chair Woollett and Members of the Design Review Committee THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Daniel Ryan,
More informationDesign Guidelines for Residential Subdivisions
Design Guidelines for Residential Subdivisions Development Services 972-466-3225 cityofcarrollton.com This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Purpose... 1 Design Objectives... 1 Design Guidelines
More informationParking Garage Site Selection Committee Final Report October 15, 2012
Parking Garage Site Selection Committee Final Report October 15, 2012 Executive Summary Recommend a Short-List of Sites for Further Review: 1. Explore the Possibility of a Private/ Public Partnership 2.
More information(APN: );
Gardnerville Town Board AGENDA ACTION SHEET 1. For Possible Action: Discussion to approve, approve with modifications or deny a project review application for Chase Bank located South of Lampe Drive, East
More information4780 Eglinton Avenue West - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 4780 Eglinton Avenue West - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report Date: May 29, 2014 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Etobicoke
More informationResidential Design Guidelines
Residential Design Guidelines Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines Introduction These guidelines seek to provide property owners, designers and developers with a clear understanding of the City
More informationMEMORANDUM. This memo deals with proposed amendments to previously issued Development Permit No for Park Royal North.
MEMORANDUM Date: August 28, 2015 Our File: 1010-20-15-062 To: Design Review Committee From: Lisa Berg, Senior Community Planner Re: Amendment to Development Permit for Park Royal North This memo deals
More informationD1 September 11, 2013 Public Hearing APPLICANT:
D1 September 11, 2013 Public Hearing APPLICANT: BEACH MUNICIPAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PROPERTY OWNER: SISTERS II, LLC STAFF PLANNER: Karen Prochilo REQUEST: Conditional Change of Zoning (AG-2 Agriculture
More informationCITY OF TORRANCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TORRANCE TRACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN. City Council Tuesday, December 5, 2017 PAGE & TURNBULL
CITY OF TORRANCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TORRANCE TRACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN City Council Tuesday, December 5, 2017 PAGE & TURNBULL AGENDA PART 1: FRAMEWORK 1. Objectives and Background
More informationSMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS. An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation
SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS ILLUSTRATED WORKING FOR TEST IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW SMALL LOT CODE AMENDMENT & POLICY UPDATE
More informationAnalysis of Environs of Clinton Park located at 901 W 5 th Street
Environs Definition p.1 Analysis of Environs of Clinton Park located at 901 W 5 th Street Step One Historical Significance and Context Clinton Park was identified on Searl s first survey plan for Lawrence
More informationMULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES Site Plan and Design Review Principles Checklist
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES Site Plan and Design Review Principles Checklist Applicant s Name: Project Address: Phone: Email: Applicant shall fill out the design guidelines checklist for
More informationIncentive Zoning Regulations Florida Municipal City of Orlando
Topic: Resource Type: State: Jurisdiction Type: Municipality: Year (adopted, written, etc.): 2002 Community Type applicable to: Title: Incentive Zoning Regulations Florida Municipal City of Orlando Document
More informationAnalysis of Environs of 1000 New York Street, German Methodist Episcopal Church
Item No. 3: L-14-00028 p.1 Analysis of Environs of New York Street, German Methodist Episcopal Church Step One Historical Significance and Context According to the application for Historic Landmark Designation,
More information4.0 Design Guidelines For The Village Centre. South fields Community Architectural Design Guidelines Town of Caledon
4.0 Design Guidelines For The Village Centre 4.0 Design Guidelines for the Village Centre The Village Centre is the focal point of the entire South Fields Community and is designed as a traditional commercial
More informationBaker Historic District
DISTRICT DESCRIPTION This is a historically middle-class neighborhood in the South Side, an area annexed by Denver in 1883, consisting of more than 20 tightly interwoven residential subdivisions. The earliest
More informationDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2012 TO: Chair Woollett and Members of the Design Review Committee THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Daniel Ryan,
More informationUrban Design Brief 1576 Richmond Street City of London
Urban Design Brief City of London Treadstone Developments October 31, 2014 Urban Design Brief October 31, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION... 1 SECTION 1 LAND USE PLANNING CONCEPT... 1 1.1
More informationWINDSOR GLEN DESIGN GUIDELINES
WINDSOR GLEN DESIGN GUIDELINES Adopted by Council, 2006 WINDSOR GLEN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES August 2006 1.0 Master Plan Organization For this area of the Coquitlam Town Centre, a mix of high,
More informationRequest Change in Nonconformity. Staff Recommendation Approval. Staff Planner Jonathan Sanders
Applicant & Owner Public Hearing April 11, 2018 City Council Election District Beach Agenda Item 5 Request Change in Nonconformity Staff Recommendation Approval Staff Planner Jonathan Sanders Location
More informationThe broad range of permitted and special uses allowed in the district remain, but some descriptions have been clarified.
Memorandum To: Emily Fultz, AICP City Planner, City of Edwardsville From: Michael Blue, FAICP Principal, Teska Associates Date: January 24, 2019 RE: B-1 Zoning District Update A draft, updated B-1 Central
More informationWide asphalt driveway abutting school property. garage built with incompatible materials, too close to park. incompatible fencing materials
Wide asphalt driveway abutting school property incompatible fencing materials garage built with incompatible materials, too close to park Lack of plantings as a buffer between private property and open
More informationOttawa Historic Resources Inventory: Commercial Historic District Building Information. Significance and Potential Eligibility
C 01 1 Address: address 1 PIN: 21 11 218 001 Plan: Rectangular Stories: 2 Original Owner: Roof Type: Flat Building Names: Marquette School Foundation: Important Dates: ca 1955 Walls: BRICK Architect /
More informationREPORT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Agenda Number: HDC 14-15 MEETING DATE: August 21, 2014 REPORT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION SUBJECT: 196 E. Poplar Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations INTRODUCTION: Mike
More informationARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE DESIGN GUIDELINES DECEMBER 2000 PREPARED FOR THE MEREDITH PLANNING BOARD BY CHRISTOPHER P. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECTS
DESIGN GUIDELINES DECEMBER 2000 PREPARED FOR THE BY CHRISTOPHER P. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECTS PURPOSE STATEMENT Architectural Design Review Design Guidelines provides architectural guidance intended to support
More informationUrban Design Guidelines Townhouse and Apartment Built Form
Urban Design Guidelines Townhouse and Apartment Built Form Town of Wasaga Beach Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose 1.2. Urban Design Principles 1.3. Application of Guidelines 2. Site Design,
More informationCha p t e r 2: Ge n e r a l De s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s
Downtown Ann Arbor Design Guidelines Cha p t e r 2: Ge n e r a l De s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s This chapter presents general design guidelines for new site plan or PUD projects in downtown Ann Arbor. The
More information1071 King Street West Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 1071 King Street West Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report Date: August 9, 2012 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Toronto and East York Community Council Director,
More informationCity of Bellingham. Multifamily Residential Design Handbook
City of Bellingham Multifamily Residential Design Handbook ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 2001-23 ON JULY 16, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose... 2 Applicability... 2 How to Use the Handbook... 2 Review
More information646 Kingston Road - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications - Preliminary Report
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 646 Kingston Road - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications - Preliminary Report Date: December 8, 2014 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Toronto and East
More information5.1 Site Plan Guidelines
5. Community Core Guidelines Development of the Community Core will take place by plan of subdivision and site plan approval. It will occur in a phased manner that will reflect the timing of residential
More informationWATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 20.25.080 WATERFRONT DISTRICT A. Purpose. This section is intended to implement The Waterfront District Subarea Plan by: 1. Creating a safe, vibrant mixed-use urban
More informationDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA SITE PLAN REVIEW REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA SITE PLAN REVIEW REPORT DOCKET NO.: MUC-3-15 ADVERTISING DATES: 7/22/15 7/29/15 SUMMARY NO: 24309 8/05/15 COUNCIL DISTRICTS: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 8/13/15
More informationKEY MAP DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA MAP. Sunnymede North Sub-Area Plan
Richmond Official Community Plan BROADMOOR AREA SUNNYMEDE NORTH SUB-AREA PLAN Bylaw 7100 Schedule 2.6C SUNNYMEDE NORTH SUB-AREA PLAN SUNNYMEDE NORTH SUB-AREA PLAN SUNNYMEDE NORTH SUB-AREA PLAN KEY MAP
More informationTHE AVENUES HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY BUILDING INVENTORY SHEET
THE AVENUES HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STUDY BUILDING INVENTORY SHEET Issued by the Arts, Culture & Heritage Division of the City of Peterborough with ERA Architects Inc. Thank you for agreeing to
More informationST. ANDREWS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DESIGN STANDARDS
ST. ANDREWS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DESIGN STANDARDS The following recommended list of development criteria are presented for consideration in guiding residential development in the St. Andrews historic
More informationChapter 5: Mixed Use Neighborhood Character District
5: Mixed Use Neighborhood Character District 5.1 Introduction The Mixed Use Neighborhood character district acts as a transition or bridge between the State Route 89A District s commercial area to the
More informationThe Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division 301-952-3530 Note: Staff reports can be accessed at www.mncppc.org/pgco/planning/plan.htm.
More information280 Manse Road - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 280 Manse Road - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report Date: March 11, 2014 To: From: Wards: Reference Number:
More information5.1.1 The streetscape along US Highway 64 (Brevard Road); and, The built environment within new residential developments; and,
Article 5. Landscaping 5.1 Purpose The Town of Laurel Park s landscape standards are designed to create a beautiful, aesthetically pleasing built environment that will complement and enhance community
More informationPROPOSED WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
PROPOSED WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 20.25 DESIGN REVIEW. 20.25.080 WATERFRONT DISTRICT A. Purpose. This section is intended to implement The Waterfront District Subarea Plan by: 1. Creating a
More informationTazewell Pike. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines
Tazewell Pike Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines Knoxville Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission November 2, 2000 These design guidelines were: Adopted by the Knoxville
More informationNEW HOMES IN ANCASTER S MATURE NEIGHBOURHOODS WHAT WE HAVE HEARD
NEW HOMES IN ANCASTER S MATURE NEIGHBOURHOODS Council directed staff to review the Existing Residential ER Zone in Ancaster as a pilot project to determine how to manage the building of new residential
More informationARTICLE 8 DESIGN STANDARDS
ARTICLE 8 DESIGN STANDARDS 8.000 Overview. The purpose of this Article is to establish additional standards for certain uses. These standards are intended to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property
More informationSEAPINES STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH MARCH 2017
SEAPINES STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH MARCH 2017 CONTENTS DEFINITIONS... 2 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE... 3 LOCATION... 3 RECOMMENDED BUILDING PLACEMENT & SETBACKS... 5 RECOMMENDED CONCEPTS
More informationBULLETIN #1 Summerfield/Riverwalk Fencing Criteria
BULLETIN #1 Summerfield/Riverwalk Fencing Criteria PRIVACY FENCES (typically required on interior lots): Privacy fences shall be a maximum of six (6 ) feet high. The standard fence specified is Country
More informationBOULEVARD AND PARKWAY STANDARDS
88-323 BOULEVARD AND PARKWAY STANDARDS 88-323-01 PURPOSE Considerable public and private investment exists and is expected to occur adjacent to boulevards and parkways within the city. The following standards
More informationRESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES CHECKLIST
RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES CHECKLIST The following checklist was created to provide you with an easy way to ensure that your project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
More informationDOWNTOWN TRANSCONA URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
DOWNTOWN TRANSCONA URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES May 18, 2010 Introduction DOWNTOWN TRANSCONA URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES The Downtown Transcona Urban Design Guidelines ("the Guidelines") establish criteria for
More informationOld Metairie Neighborhood Conservation District
Michael S. Yenni Parish President Jennifer Van Vrancken Council District Teresa A. Wilkinson, AICP Planning Director STAFF REPORT Old Metairie Neighborhood Conservation District Docket No. Ninette Eastman,
More informationAppendix D North Road/N. Leroy Street Subarea Plan
North Road/N. Leroy Street Subarea Plan INTRODUCTION The City of Fenton Master Plan was updated in 1996 and included a subarea plan for the North Leroy Street area of the City. It was recognized at that
More informationR STREET CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD Site Plan and Design Review Supplemental Guidelines Checklist
R STREET CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD Site Plan and Design Review Supplemental Guidelines Checklist Applicant s Name: Project Address: Phone: Email: Applicant shall fill out the design guidelines checklist for
More informationB. Blocks, Buildings and Street Networks
B. Blocks, Buildings and Street Networks Figure IV.4 A rational block pattern with connected streets Introduction The single most important element in the physical and functional integration of mixed use
More information5.1 Commercial and Industrial Development. (Effective April 1, 2006)
5.1 Commercial and Industrial Development. (Effective April 1, 2006) A. Applicability: The requirements of this section (5.10) shall apply to all uses within the LB Local Business; HB Highway Business;
More informationSTAFF BRIEF. Project: 2016-COA-356 Meeting: September 8, th Street Oxford Hotel
Community Planning and Development Denver Landmark Preservation 20 West Colfax, Dept. 205 p: (720)-865-2709 f: (720)-865-3050 www.denvergov.org/preservation STAFF BRIEF E-Mail: landmark@denvergov.org This
More information14825 Fruitvale Ave.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 Application: PDR14-0017 Location/APN: 14825 Fruitvale Ave. / 397-18-028 Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Sin Yong Michael Fossati 14825 Fruitvale
More information7437, 7439 and 7441 Kingston Road - Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Applications - Preliminary Report
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 7437, 7439 and 7441 Kingston Road - Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Applications - Preliminary Report Date: August 13, 2015 To: From: Wards: Reference Number:
More informationMayor Leon Skip Beeler and Members of the City Commission. Anthony Caravella, AICP, Director of Development Services
CITY COMMISSION BRIEFING & Planning Board Report For Meeting Scheduled for June 7, 2012 Inner Room Cabaret Site Plan/Architectural Review Downtown Overlay District/Primary Downtown Area Site Plan Consent
More informationI Street, Sacramento, CA
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Sacramento 12 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2671 To: Members of the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING March 10, 2011 Subject: El Dorado Savings Sign Variance
More informationAMEND DMENT H HOSPITAL
AMEND DMENT TO LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD MASTER PLAN H HOSPITAL ZONE DISTRICT Village of Ridgewood Planning Board February 28, 2014with technical revisions from June 9, 2014 Planning Board
More informationII. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
II. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Castle Rock is made up of numerous individually built houses and subdivision tracts that have been developed during the past century. Some of the tracts are diverse in architectural
More informationCHAPTER 11 HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
CHAPTER 11 HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION 11.01 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE This District is intended primarily for uses emphasizing highway related service, such as service stations, restaurants,
More informationPLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT 55 DELHI STREET CITY OF GUELPH PREPARED FOR: VESTERRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PREPARED BY: LABRECHE PATTERSON & ASSOCIATES INC. SCOTT PATTERSON, BA, CPT, MCIP, RPP PRINCIPAL,
More informationWinston Road Neighbourhood Town of Grimsby. Urban Design Manual. February 2016
Winston Road Neighbourhood Town of Grimsby Urban Design Manual February 2016 FEBRUARY 2016 Winston Road Neighbourhood Urban Design Manual Town of Grimsby 1 2 3 Contents Introduction Document Overview...
More informationLITTLETON CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES
LITTLETON CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES Littleton Center Design Guidelines 1 I. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS These Design Guidelines have been initially created by Hallin Family LLC (the "Developer"), and govern all
More informationUrban Design Brief Woodland Cemetery Funeral Home 493 Springbank Drive
Urban Design Brief Woodland Cemetery Funeral Home The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron April 15, 2016 Urban Design Brief April 15, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION... 1 SECTION 1
More informationClairtrell Area Context Plan
Clairtrell Area Context Plan March 2005 Urban Development Services City Planning Contents 1. Introduction... 4 2. Development Structure... 6 2.1 Streets... 7 2.1.1 Sheppard Avenue and Bayview Avenue...
More informationCHAPTER 10 GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
CHAPTER 10 GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION 10.01 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE A. This District is intended for commercial development of a general nature near areas where greater concentrations of residential
More informationTown of Cedarburg Design Guidelines & Standards Commercial / Multi Family / Senior Care /Institutional/ Government Facilities Adopted August 6, 2014
1 Town of Cedarburg Design Guidelines & Standards Commercial / Multi Family / Senior Care /Institutional/ Government Facilities Adopted August 6, 2014 1 2 Manual Approved by the Town Board via Resolution
More informationResources Present: _x_building Structure Object Site District _X_Element of District Other:
NRHP Status Code 5D1 - contributor Page 1 of 1 *Resource Name: 1006 S. Hayworth Ave. P1: Other Identifier: 1006 S. Hayworth Ave. c: Address: 1006 S. Hayworth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90035 e: Other Locational
More information14.0 BUILT FORM DESIGN CRITERIA
14.0 BUILT FORM DESIGN CRITERIA CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF CARLETON PLACE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY-LAW 123 124 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF CARLETON PLACE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY-LAW 14.1 MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT
More informationRequired yards shall be horizontally unobstructed except as follows:
ARTICLE IV: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 418 SETBACKS IV 111 418 SETBACKS 418 1 Obstruction in Required Yards Required yards shall be horizontally unobstructed except as follows: 418 1.1 Cornices, eaves, belt
More informationGlossary. Block Face The row of front façades, facing the street, for the length of. Addition New construction attached to an existing structure.
Glossary Addition New construction attached to an existing structure. Architectural Features Prominent or significant parts or elements of a building or structure. Architectural Style The characteristic
More informationZoning OBJECTIVE: in the zoning. is to make. projects for. the Planning and. are attached ITTALS: Department
City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department CITY OF MIAMI VISION STATEMENT: To Be an International City that Embodies Diversity, Economic Opportunity, Effective Customer Service and a Highly Rated Quality
More informationDirector, Community Planning, North York District
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 36 and 37 Jane Osler Boulevard and 42 and 44 Cartwright Avenue Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval Applications - Preliminary Report Date: May 22,
More informationINSTITUTIONAL USE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY TECHNIQUES
INSTITUTIONAL USE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY TECHNIQUES INTRODUCTION Community institutions are an important part of the character and vitality of neighborhoods in Forsyth County. Institutional uses include
More informationTO: Denver Planning Board FROM: Analiese Hock, Senior City Planner DATE: March 13, 2018 RE:
Community Planning and Development Planning Services 201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept. 205 Denver, CO 80202 p: 720.865.2915 f: 720.865.3052 www.denvergov.org/cpd TO: Denver Planning Board FROM: Analiese Hock,
More informationZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE ZONED UNINCORPORATED AREAS ARTICLE 1300 OF PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Page 119 ARTICLE 1300 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
OF PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Page 119 ARTICLE 1300 LSCAPING SCREENING 1300.01 STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT 1300.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1300.03 REQUIREMENTS 1300.04 SUBMISSION APPROVAL 1300.05 SCREENING
More informationMarch 24, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD ADOPTED MARCH 24, 2010 Culver City Planning Commission March 24, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS John Kuechle Commission Chair Linda Smith-Frost
More informationChapter 4: Jordan Road Character District
4: Jordan Road Character District 4.1 Introduction The Jordan Road character district encompasses much of the former Jordan orchard and farmstead, which was a significant part of Sedona s history. The
More informationMaplewood Avenue Downtown Complete Street Project
Maplewood Avenue Downtown Complete Street Project Second Public Meeting January 24, 2018 Welcome and Introduction of Project Team City Planning and Public Works Staff City of Portsmouth Juliet Walker Planning
More information